Managing Deadlocks in Negotiation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055067 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| Pages | 2-7 |
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| Author | Ray Fells |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Managing
Deadlocks
in Negotiation
by Ray Fells
Industrial Relations Department,
University of Western Australia
Introduction
An earlier article in this journal[1] outlined a model of the
process of negotiation with particular reference to negotia-
tion in the industrial relations context. The model suggests
that negotiations go through five phases or patterns of
negotiating activity as the negotiators move through to a
settlement. On the basis of the model, it is possible to
iden-
tify several implications for negotiators, and, in particular,
to make the point that the two parties must jointly manage
their progress through the negotiations. Within the negotia-
tion process there are three potential deadlocks which could
emerge to obstruct this progress if the negotiations were
not properly and jointly managed. This article develops the
concept of deadlocks in negotiation more fully, and attempts
to identify the implications for negotiators by suggesting
how deadlocks might be identified and overcome.
Deadlocks in Negotiations
The literature on negotiating generally focuses on how
agreements are reached and what they might be. Little em-
phasis is placed on the obstacles which might cause
negotiations to come to a halt or even prevent an agree-
ment from being reached at all. This would appear to be
an omission because deadlocks are an integral part of the
process of reaching agreement by negotiation. From a
review of the experimental research, Pruitt[2] suggests that
negotiators tend to end up in a deadlock before developing
insight into the structure of the negotiating game. Only by
finding themselves in a deadlock do negotiators perceive
that some form of co-operation with the other side is
preferable to having no agreement at all.
A deadlock is not merely the final choice for a negotiator
of whether to agree with the other side or close the negotia-
tions off without a settlement. It is part of the total process
of reaching agreement[3], but it is not just a time to take
stock and gather strength, as Carlisle and Leary suggest.
The onset of a deadlock is a time of changing perceptions.
The parties will be challenged to modify their attitude on
what can, and cannot, be achieved on the issue in dispute.
They will also be forced to reconsider their tactics in trying
to achieve their objectives. It is therefore important to view
deadlocks in negotiation as one of the mechanisms by
which attitudes are changed.
Defining the Deadlocks in Negotiation
Various terms are used to describe negotiations when they
head into a crisis, Negotiations can be described as
"deadlocked", as having "broken down", or as reaching an
"impasse"; both this terminology and the extent of the crisis
being portrayed are unclear. Three ascending levels of crisis
in negotiatons can be identified. Firstly, negotiators may not
be making any progress through their verbal exchanges. The
negotiators will typically be repeating their arguments and
going over the same ground without provoking any attitude
change in the other side, or in themselves. Secondly, they
may not be talking to each other; for some reason or other,
they are not trying to make progress through negotiation,
for example, one negotiator may feel that the passage of
time is to his advantage in the dispute, so he stalls and
avoids contact with the other side. Thirdly, one or both par-
ties may use non-negotiation methods to bring about
changes in attitudes.
The common denominator in all three situations is that there
is no progress in achieving movement towards a settlement.
A deadlock is therefore defined as a situation where no
evi-
dent progress towards a settlement is being made in the
negotiations. This is less drastic than a total breakdown,
when there is no communication between the parties and
usually some form of industrial action as
well.
Such a
breakdown reflects that aspect of the industrial relations
negotiation process which gives scope for non-negotiation
methods to be employed. It obviously involves a deadlock,
as defined in this article, but being in a deadlock does not
necessarily involve industrial action.
Deadlocks have the potential to emerge at any one of three
phases in the negotiation process (see Figure 1). The first,
the process deadlock, may develop in the early stage of the
negotiation as part of the breaking-up phase. An issue
deadlock may occur in the finding solutions phase and an
image deadlock may emerge in the final closure phase.
These three deadlocks are described in more detail in the
sections which follow.
The Process Deadlock
The industrial relations negotiators have the opportunity to
employ non-negotiation methods, such as walking out of
meetings, industrial action or even a reference to arbitra-
2 ER 8,2 · 1986
To continue reading
Request your trial